U.K. takes down data showing footprint of nuclear vs. “renewables”

Telegraph: The infographic the U.K. government doesn't want you to see

  • Infographic nuclear solar wind footprints

The U.K. plans to invest in new nuclear power following France’s lead, but breaking ranks with Germany and the big Green pressure groups.

The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change published this infographic, but then took it down.  Businesses reaping billions in subsidies from solar and wind deemed it “unhelpful.”

The facts according to the U.K. government?

Acres required to power 6 million homes:

Wind 250,000
Solar 130,000
Nuclear 430

The Daily Telegraph calls it “the infographic the U.K. government doesn’t want you to see.”

The U.K. should not only want you to see this, it should add in coal and gas as well.


About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • FrankSW

    Not verified but someone has pointed out this 430 acres include that used while building the plant, when complete the Hinkley Point footprint will fall to 160 acres

  • CaptD

    Yet another Pro Nuclear canard, remember that one nuclear power plant can become a Fukushima and cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster, wind and/or solar cannot!

    • William Ewing

      Wind and solar can’t do a lot of things – like provide enough power to matter. Nuclear is the best, safest option, but frightened fools lie about the damage it can do. Fukushima was not built to deal with the level of quake it should have been, yet the damage is still far less than the greenies try to spin it as.

      • CaptD

        You are right, Wind and Solar can’t do a lot of things like cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima!

        As for providing clean and safe energy, unlike risky and expensive nuclear, they will define our future, that is unless decision makers are receiving money from the nuclear utilities…

        • William Ewing

          Fukushima didn’t cause anything, that was the tsunami. Wind provides little, but does do ecological damage. Solar is purely supplementary, when it works. Together, they can only define a Malthusian future. Nuclear, however, can open the cycle and allow us to grow. The expense of nuclear is also mostly due to scare-mongering and excessive regulation.

          We badly need to go to thorium pebble-bed reactors, with a handful of soliton reactors for processing spent fuel, and use some of the electricity to crack sea water for hydrogen to power cars, as well as to create more drinking water. We also need to encourage more businesses and homebuilders to supplement with roof-based solar cells, while discouraging large area solar arrays (except in orbit).

          • CaptD

            Forget the Nuclear R&D, if we sue that money to install safe and proven Solar (of all flavors) we get immediate access to energy without any nuclear baggage or risk…

            SMR win Golden Fleece Award:


            • William Ewing

              Forget solar – it’s proven ONLY to be modestly useful, but utterly unable to replace the grid, and takes too long to provide any benefit. As for R&D – what R&D? We already know how to build pebble bed reactors, and we’ve also already built soliton reactors. The only real baggage to nuclear is the agitprop of useful idiots such as yourself. Nor do I care about the Proxmires – the unlamented senator set back the space program considerably, for which he should have been executed as a traitor to the whole human species. Take off the blinders and actually THINK!

              • CaptD

                Ever more Nuclear Baloney from you while at the same time you refer to me saying,”useful idiots such as yourself”.

                Name calling is prohibited, end of discussion……………..

                • William Ewing

                  You post no facts, only green dreams. You also have entirely too thin a skin. Look up the phrase you found yourself offended by, and then really rethink the lies you buy.

                  • CaptD


              • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman
                • William Ewing

                  Cherrypicking allows you to make things seem better. Overall, across all zones, solar does not scale as well.

                  • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

                    Care to share some proof of that? Closer to the equator than Germany, solar should only get better.

            • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

              Half a US billion is peanuts compared to ongoing wars. The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second. State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars. http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

              • William Ewing

                And I for one, would love to end the war on drugs and get rid of the DEA. Put that money into a real space program.

          • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

            Have they solved the dust and constipation issues of pebble-bed reactors yet? LFTR or IFR may be more viable designs.

    • William Ewing

      As the professor pointed out above, solar cells are replete with toxic waste. Wind farms kill birds and bats in large numbers, significantly impacting the local ecology. And the metal to build has to be mined, so your beloved “green” tech really isn’t green at all. Open your eyes.

      • CaptD

        Ever more crapola from you posted without having any factual basis.

        Post some links to backup your claims (if you can find any) or at least get educated on the subjects you claim to know something about!

        Try this excellent piece on bird deaths and who is to blame
        Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers, Wind Turbines Not Even Close To The Top (Be sure to read the comments and notice all the links to back them up)!

        Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/31/canada-ranks-top-bird-killers-wind-turbines-even-close-top/#Yl5u5iclrMublQBv.99:

        • William Ewing

          Links mean little, other than that someone built a site to say something. That does not make it true. I, on the other hand, read books and evaluate the author’s claims logically. Don’t be so credulous.

          • CaptD

            Ha Ha Ha

        • William Ewing

          Quite the propaganda site you cite. Even there, the comments show that the data was old, and based on the then-extant low number of wind turbines, and is no longer accurate.

          • CaptD

            Name calling and claims of “Propaganda” will not convince any readers that you actually have valid points worth considering…

      • Jasoturner

        I was recently visiting Wisconsin. Apparently the windmills killed far fewer birds than the alarmists anticipated, but the effect on the bat population was very bad. The vibration of the blades attracts them, and the blade backwash (not hitting the blades themselves) when they flew by crushed their lungs. Anecdote for the record.

  • jameshrust

    The land area estimates are in the ball park for what is really required. They assume a British home use 4300 kilowatt-hours per year; which on U. S. standards is pretty low. In Georgia we average 12000 kilowatt-hours per year. My estimate is 3300 MW nuclear, 10,000 MW wind, and 26000 MW solar. The solar or wind plants will cease operation within 25 years and will be pieces of junk carrying toxic materials that no one wants to claim. The nuclear plants will last fifty years and will generate possibly 5 times as much energy as a wind plant and 16 times as much energy as a solar plant.
    The economics will work out far better for nuclear plants. It is probably ill advised to build power plants on site subject to earth quakes and tsunamis.
    James H. Rust, Professor

  • Ruth Bard

    Ah, but it seems Fukushima was only a disaster in the media. Check this out: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ And if nuclear power plants can get off this easy in earthquake- and tsunami-prone Japan, then nuclear should be a viable option almost anywhere. We Have The Technology.

  • CaptD

    Beware the nuclear industry because what they say does not mean it is factual!

    Japanese governor calls out TEPCO for ‘institutionalized lying’

    Please also read the comments.

  • Scottar

    Question is what kind of nuclear will that be. There are 4th and 5th gen reactors that don’t need water for cooling and of those 2 or 3 can burn up the waste generated by the others.

    Some will claim that because we managed to out men on the moon we can make renewables viable. I say that’s like trying to put men on the moon with a sling shot!

  • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman
  • CaptD

    One thing is sure, twenty years from now Solar (of all flavors) will be far cheaper than it is now and far more efficient; plus the equipment being installed today will still be in operating safely…

    The same cannot be said for nuclear, unless some amazing breakthrough is made and I believe the odds on that are slim to none… Time will tell.

    More relevant info:


  • CaptD

    More on UK Nuclear costs:


    Nuclear is in reality, only a “good deal” for the Utilities and their shareholders that own them because ratepayers have to pay for everything, even mis-management (like the debacle that occurred at San Onofre NPP which left ratepayers holding a multi-billion dollar bill) and that does not even include decommissioning which has its own set of huge expenses which will continue “forever”.

    In short, nuclear is no longer fiscally acceptable, if it was then these Utilities would fund them themselves instead on requiring Gov’t. guarantees!

  • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

    Solar panels should go on roofs, hogging no land, and on-shore wind farms can double as (hemp for blades?) crop fields. Nuclear reactors are much more efficient, but only needed where renewables don’t suffice, eg in space probes and submarines.